Digital BW, The Print

From your cartridge size description (less than a video tape) I presume that you mean the 
110 ml carts.

With your apparent printing volume you should upgrade to using the 220's when you get a 
chance.

Scott'

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "wwodets" <odets@c...> wrote:
>
> Having spent the last six months using a 2400, I received a 4800 
> yesterday and have it set up, just now, with some QTR ICC profiles 
> for VFA, EEM and HPR.  Since so many are using one or the other of 
> these printers, I thought I'd give my impressions of the comparison.
> 
> 1.  The 4800 seems like a huge leap in apparent technology over the 
> 2400 and at $1,400 (that rebate last month) it seems like a steal.
> 2.  The driver in the 4800 is more awkward (Windows):  type of feed, 
> orientation, etc. are not savable in a workflow.  This seems odd and 
> irritating.  The feed route (top manual, tray, etc.) must be selected 
> before anything else or certain papers and ABW are unavailable. (Am I 
> wrong on this?)  
> 3.  The top manual feed slot is very fussy and difficult to use,  
> rejecting paper because it was not inserted "deeply" or it is 
> crooked.  The alternative, the front manual slot, requires a good 15 
> inches behind the printer and I don't have the space for that.  Even 
> this loading is hardly the height of convenience.  The EEM tray 
> loading (holds about 75 sheets I think) is a delight.
> 4.  The size of the ink carts in the 4800 is a huge relief.  They are 
> three quarters the size of a VHS tape.  I had been stocking 30-40 
> carts for the 2400 and changing them *constantly*.
> 5.  Surprisingly, the 4800 seems a bit slower in cranking out a print 
> (2880, unidirectional).
> Walt
>